You’re the only one trying to make the argument you’re making, and it fails because its logic is flawed. For example, if you’re standing outside of a gym and 100 people walk out and 75 of them tell you that there’s a basketball game being played in there, then that is good evidence to believe that there is in fact a basketball game being played in the gym. It is not valid to say that the perceptions and beliefs of a large percentage of the people in a given population don’t tell us anything about what’s actually happening. Does this make it any clearer? Here are another couple of examples. Does that fact that most scientists believe in manmade global warming tell us anything about whether or not it’s happening? Your current argument says that it tells us nothing. Does the fact that a majority of scientists believe in some form of evolution tell us anything about whether it’s true? Again, you’re arguing that that fact tells us nothing about whether evolution is or isn’t true in any way.
The fact that so many people believe in something is not proof that it is true when those people have a vested interest in it being true. People don't want death to be the end, so they believe in God. That does not mean it is more likely that there is a God.
What about the fact that for thousands of years many part of the wolrd never even heard of Christ? There are still part of the world where people never heard of Christ. So when god created people he apparently never told most of them that he is THE god.
Belief isn't evidence. That's what you continue to fail to understand and it's why you're having trouble in this thread.
This is good. You’re making an argument here for why the majority opinion may be wrong. This is a valid alternative theory, and it could become a whole other topic as we pursue this claim. The next question might be, why would people care if they die? Who fears death and what is that fear about? Who doesn’t fear death and why? If you’re interested in going down this path it should probably be done in another thread, but this is a valid alternate theory and line of questioning to pursue.
But it is evidence. It’s indirect evidence but it’s still evidence. Indirect evidence is one step further removed and therefore is often subject to more sources of error, but it is evidence just the same, and it's a a very common form of evidence at that, even in hard science.
I don't think science can explain why we feel those things but more how we feel them as a function of brain chemistry and evolutionary advantage. The ultimate why questions such as if we have a soul, what happens after death, and higher purpose can't be scientifically answered. As rational beings though aware of our mortality those are questions that we are bound to ask.
I'm willing to say that is evidence but to put it in internet terms that is weak sauce. A lot of people believe things but without other corroboration just the belief of it alone isn't sufficient as proof alone. For example, after 9/11 most Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 and even now opinion polls routinely show that a significant percent of the population continues to believe that. Just taking that belief though isn't proof and no further proof has been found that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. As I've said before scientifically I can't say whether deities exist or not but belief alone isn't enough to prove there existence as a fact. Its evidence but at the most that can be factually said is that a lot of people believe in deities. I don't want to speak for Dr. Tour but he doesn't strike me as someone who is much of a social scientist and in his piece when he talks about science he is specifically talking about hard science. Peer review isn't but there is no other better way to do it and as I heard another scientist say the other day scientist would like nothing better than to prove another scientiest down especially a famous one. True but again belief alone isn't the standard of proof. There are all sorts of cures floating around out there that are based on tribal / religious remedies but a lot of those have ended up to be snake oil. So while yes an Amazonian tribesman might be aware of a plant that has incredible anti-biotic effects I would say that before we put it into the Physicians Guide that it undergoes some other testing. As a sci-fi nerd I certainly think it is a possibility and think it would be pretty cool of if 2001 were actually true but until I see more I'm not going to consider that as being a likelyhood of terrestial origin and speciation.
Though you couldn't say absolutely that there is a game going on in there especially if the 100 people you asked haven't actually been inside the gym and are just going off of what someone else told them. There is a reason why hearsay evidence isn't allowed in courts and belief in deities is essentially hearsay since there isn't direct proof of them. Belief though isn't the primary argument for Global Warming or Evolution. There are several other pieces of evidence supporting those theories and infact I don't recall Darwin or the scientist who developed the theory of Global Warming citing belief as evidence.
The answer is, nothing does. Your personal bias, however, against his views on theology seem to make you assume otherwise. Which is a real shame, because that street doesn't run both ways. i.e. you won't find many agnostic/atheists who would shut out your views on how to build successful/healthy personal relationships with people (as long as we're not dealing with anti-gay/muslim hardliners) simply because of your theological views... because those things don't necessarily have to do with one another.
Hearsay isn't evidence. It proves nothing. And no, it isn't used in hard science. In fact, you would be laughed out of the room if you suggested that. I think you need to learn more about the purpose and history of science to continue this conversation.
You use evidence when you are doing science, and then you use your believe when you are doing religion things. You do not need mix them up.
Nice to see a person of science devoted to his faith. For whatever science cannot explain, religion atleast gives us hope about the unknown.
I wasn't assuming anything. I wouldn't go to a pastor who is on his third marriage and ask him for marriage advice. I deal with these issues almost daily trying to help people make wise choices that will fulfill their personal goals. I have found in my own experience that intelligence does not equate to wisdom nor does it ensure the best choices either. Both of which are far more important to me than evolution. My point is simple. His crusade against religion is very different than my efforts to help others. And my efforts are motivated by the very thing he despises. I spend alot of time helping people who are crying out for help. I think it is the right thing to do. I have never even thought about crusading against atheists. I have several close friends who are atheists. That's all.
So, once again, what makes you think he is precluded from having a healthy, loving, or lifelong marriage? Or being able to help others in that regard? You know nothing about his ability in that respect (even a person who has divorced a billion times can still know a lot about a healthy marriage... probably because they've learned more from failure than someone would otherwise), so logically you are assuming something. *edit: are you basing your opinion on his rejection your personal theology? or on his personal life? or both?
When I was younger and living near NASA, a majority of the members in my church were scientists and engineers. One had his picture in TIME magazine as the first one to examine the Moon rocks. They were all brilliant and all creationists. Interesting. Even today most of the physical scientists I know are creationists while most of my social science friends are evolutionists.
